Django Unchained - Movie Forum - Rotten Tomatoes

Rotten Tomatoes

- - Box Office
  - In Theaters
  - Upcoming
  - Top Movies
  - Certified Fresh
  - Showtimes
  - Trailers
  - Photos
- Opening this week
  - The Great Gatsby
    38%
  - Peeples
    46%
  - Stories We Tell
    95%
Movies
- New on DVD
  - Finding Nemo 3D
    99%
  - Mama
    65%
  - Jack Reacher
    61%
DVD
- - View All
- Who's In Theaters This Weekend?
Celebrities
- - Features
  - Guides
  - News
  - COLUMNS:
  - 24 Frames
  - Box Office Guru
  - Critics Consensus
  - Digital Multiplex
  - Five Favorite Films
  - Parental Guidance
  - Red Carpet Roundup
  - RT on DVD
  - Total Recall
  - Video Interviews
  - Weekly Ketchup
- What's Hot on Rotten Tomatoes
  - Total Recall
  - Summer Movie Guide
News
- Spotlight
  - Beth Accomando
Critics

On DVD » Django Unchained » Movie Forum

Django Unchained

Django Unchained

88%

R, 2 hr. 45 min.
Western, Drama
Directed By:
Quentin Tarantino

In Theaters:
Dec 25, 2012 Wide

On DVD:
Apr 16, 2013
The Weinstein Co.

More Threads

259 Earth to America: This film is totally overrated. 11 How did this movie get good reviews? 1 Phil Villarreal 114 Which writer-director is better: Quentin Tarantino or Christopher Nolan? 165 The Tarantino Problem 109 Waltz Shooting Di'Caprio? Reason? 44 Wayyyy over-rated 29 Most racist movie ever made. 102 Where would you rank it in Tarantino's filmography? 3 Apparently, if it's not historically accurate... 1 amazing, wow 1 Andrew O'hehir 0 Tarantino is awesome!!! 9 My review for Django Unchained 108 Is it possible this film will turn me gay? 71 Tarantino = OVERRATED 250 Racism against whites. 4 So Offensive! 45 This movie disappointed me 313 100% is not deserved. 14 How movie violence and life really connect 0 White people cracking up..... 2 Scifi? 3 Roger Ebert 9 Any chance for the Oscar? 29 Why did they make Calvin so amazing? 12 Waltz or Jones 2 To Matthew Preston 30 Not his best movie but still enjoyable overall 19 The woman with her face covered.

Earth to America: This film is totally overrated.

So Quintin Tarantino makes a film which portrays the slavery as an evil, barbaric institution and also lampoons antebellum Southern culture. Brilliant. Novel. Why hasn't anyone ever thought of this before? Quentin Tarantino may have managed to make all the bed-wetting P.C. liberals in Hollywood swoon over his "Period" film and even get accolades from the academy. One thing Tarantino failed to do, however, was read a freshman American history textbook when he was researching for his screenplay. If he had done so, he would have learned the Ku Klux Klan WAS NOT EVEN FORMED in the United States until after the Civil War. Thus Tarantino's portrayal of a group of Klansmen was a huge anachronism and in my opinion denotes this film to mediocre-at-best status. And speaking of the Klan, what in the HELL was all that silliness about the way they put the potato sacks on their heads? I fully accept that it's great when a serious screenplay has an unexpected comic relief (think the graveyard scene in "Hamlet"). To his credit, Tarantino has done exceptional dark comic reliefs in the past: I still laugh at that scene in "Pulp Fiction" when Bruce Willis is sitting at a red light and just like that Marcellus Wallace walks right in front of his car. However, a comic relief should never change the genre of a film. In "Django Unchained," that happens. Anachronistic Klansmen arguing about potato sacks gets me thinking "Is this a Quentin Tarantino film or a Mel Brooks film?" And speaking of genre changes, the film is also replete with totally unrealistic Hollywood-style gunfights: I just loooove the way those bad guys always miss. So one minute it's a serious historical fiction called "Django Unchained," the next minute it's "Blazing Saddles," and then before you know it it's "Star Wars." Oh, and one other thing: IT'S ALSO UNDOUBTEDLY THE MOST OVERRATED FILM OF 2012. One last thing: is it just me, or does Jamie Foxx in that ridiculous costume remind us of when he was Wanda on "In Living Color?"

Sam McCrea

03-13-2013 11:58 PM

Thread Replies

Please log in to participate in this forum.

So one minute it's a serious historical fiction called "Django Unchained," the next minute it's "Blazing Saddles," and then before you know it it's "Star Wars."

Well seeing as how this is a Quentin Tarantino film, I think you can pretty much throw out "serious historical fiction." I mean c'mon, within the first couple minutes Waltz's character blows the heads off a man and a horse in a gloriously over the top scene.(and buckets upon buckets of fake blood)

"Is this a Quentin Tarantino film or a Mel Brooks film?"

LOL, you do know what a Quentin Tarantino film is, right?

May 7 - 10:45 PM

You're welcome to your own opinion, but this is a Tarantino film. You said you've seen Tarantino films before, but then complain about everything that comprises his type of films. They are random, over-the-top cinema with the sole purpose of entertainment. He entices you with clever writing and excellent acting(Christoph Waltz), then he splatters you with moments of pure, non-thinking, over the top action. The way he's able to seamlessly blend the two while throwing in his own unique humor is brilliant.

If you take this film seriously, then you're doing it wrong. If you don't like this type of film, that's your own opinion, but don't fault it for what it is.

May 7 - 10:31 PM

I've seen six of Tarantino's films, and this is the only one that I would not watch again. My reasoning is simple: the further along the movie went, the more stupid it got. Especially from the point where Django tricks the guys into giving him a gun forward it felt like the movie was written by a 12-year old. The final shootout was so predictable and childish it pretty much ruined what little was left to ruin for me. Just my opinion.

May 7 - 11:16 AM

So you liked everything until the last ten minutes?

May 7 - 12:50 PM

Brendan Sullivan

nice alex. I was about to say the same thing.

May 8 - 06:54 PM

Overrated, like your use of grammar?

How can I, take your comment/review seriously when you can't even spell the director's name correctly and yet if you just looked to the right when posting your drivel the correct spelling was right in front of you.

Apr 30 - 04:33 AM

Brendan Sullivan

yeah and he tries to make fun of everyone else's grammar.

Apr 30 - 11:26 PM

The last time my grammar was rated was when I was in school. I apologize if my 17-SENTENCE critique contains a typo. Your two-sentence remark contains one as well. That comma after "how can I" is wrong. In other words, GIVE ME A BREAK. So I make fun of EVERYONE else's grammar Brendan? Do I? And just out of curiosity, where the heck DID I misspell Tarantino?

May 4 - 10:02 AM

You actually misspelled "Quentin" in your first sentence.

May 4 - 11:18 AM

But it was just a ty-po, so it's not a big deal.

May 5 - 11:00 AM

tell us how you do everything correctly

May 4 - 09:56 PM

I agree, way over-rated. Good (not great) MOVIE, not a great FILM whatsoever. This isn't art house or Oscar worthy, but it's not terrible. Tarantino's (2nd) cameo is his worst performance yet and drops the films integrity by about 20%. Waltz is the only thing close to an endearing character you can get behind. SLJ's role was only inserted for stereotypical shock value that I thought fell flat. I love Tarantino and thought this was his worst film after Jackie Brown. I wanted more attention to detail. In the opening my friend and I said in unison 'his teeth are waaaaay to pearly blue/white!' for a 1800s white trash country asshole no less.

Apr 27 - 09:57 AM

lol whatever you say buddy

Apr 28 - 03:03 PM

Michael Weiss, I have to say, I disagree with some of your statements;
First of all, what constitutes what is 'art house' or a 'FILM'? Does the movie not have enough of an artsy,self-important vibe? How can a tiny cameo in a long, intense, epic movie ruin the whole thing, I don't get that..That's your opinion though, but as far as SLJ's role being "only inserted for stereotypical shock value"(that "fell flat"), I think you're only seeing one side of a multi-faceted, very complex character/performance. In fact, SLJ's character/performance, IMHO, is one of the most fascinating aspects of the movie in many ways.

If you pay close attention, you'll see that SLJ's 'Stephen' is putting on an act in front of everyone; he does the whole exaggerated(and brilliant)Uncle Tom schtick in front of the other slaves, and guests and what not, but if you pay attention to the subtle, yet very profound differences in his personality when he's out there in front of everyone, and the moments when he's being himself; when he and Calvin Candie step into the library for their private conversation in which Stephen reveals his suspicions about Django,Schultz, and Broomhilda, Stephen has a whole different demeanor, he's like another character. His accent changes, he has complete relaxed confidence, he's more articulate, and generally has a completely different demeanor about him. He also reveals his true character at the climax, when he drops his cane and stands up straight to confront Django.

Stephen is a fascinating character; all at once, he's a despicable human being, the lowest of the low, for turning against his own kind and being just as evil, if not more so, than the slavemaster(s), But, at the same time, it can be argued that slavery is such a harrowing experience and is so soul shattering, that this man likely has much self-loathing and can even be seen as sympathetic, making him, at once, simultaneously the most despicable And the most sympathetic character in the film, if you think about it.

As far as the opening, are you referring to Dr. King Schultz that has the way too white pearly whites? Because, if so, you should definitely pay more attention; Schultz is a respectable, sophisticated, cultured man from Germany, not a white trash country asshole, and by the way, he's a DENTIST. Also, did you see Calvin Candie's 'pearly whites'?

May 3 - 08:33 AM

It's the white trash country assholes moving all the slaves with all the pearly whites.

May 3 - 09:56 AM

Well, the fact that Calvin Candie was shown to have horribly rotted teeth, and Mr. Stonesipher with the dogs and all those greasy grimy guys in that group, these things prove to me that Tarantino's choice to have the Speck brothers have somewhat normal looking teeth, this is clearly not an oversight. In fact, you're arguing that an inaccurate, stereotypical attribute would have been preferable to what's onscreen. It would be an oversight to have all of the characters having 'pearly whites', and the same goes for having none of the characters having pearly whites. The type of greasy dirty characters of Mr. Stonesipher and those guys, they're clearly filthy caricatures of dirty hillbillies, but not every character in the movie is like this, nor should they be. While the Speck brothers are despicable, narrow minded people, clearly, it's obvious that they're somewhat civilized, at least as far as their hygiene and grooming seem to be, and that is good 'attention to detail'. If all the characters were just these filthy hillbillies then it would be a lazy, overly simplistic, one-sided oversight, IMO.

May 3 - 10:16 AM

Alright Tim, I gotcha. I have to admit I was a smidge biased as well because I thought the design of True Grit would have been something to aspire for in a movie like this. The teeth were terrible! It's the TONE of white, though, without fluoride how could you get that blue/white?! I know that's psychotic, but that was where my mind went.

May 3 - 11:28 AM

Well, I do feel ya there, and I've thought about the same thing, I love how they portrayed these characters on True Grit, and something like that would have been appealing, though of course I do still stand by what I said, but I definitely see your point..

May 3 - 11:37 AM

Quick question: Did you hate the movie Cowboys & Aliens because director Jon Favreau didn't "read a freshman American history textbook" while making the film?

Apr 27 - 09:27 AM

apples and oranges!

Apr 27 - 09:45 AM

How so? They're both works of fiction. Neither of them have a disclaimer that says "Based on a true story." The characters never existed. There are certain elements in both of them had didn't exist at the time (or ever). The list of similarities goes on and on.

Apr 27 - 04:04 PM

Frist of all, you ARE using the costume design and era as a jump off point so don't pretend you're not. Second, Cowboys and Aliens is a western themed SCIENCE FICTION piece based on a comic book, Django is a genre mashup based on an original screenplay by a writer that focuses on Crime/Drama and very specific sub genre themes from our cinema's history. Tarantino's 'universe' is really just like ours except for that every story that plays out generally just leads to a very messy room full of blood and bodies. There are many period pieces that are fiction that are still mildly educational about the era. Cowboys and Aliens is a movie, Django Unchained is actually a movie as well, but all of the 'high brows' think it's a film because it came out just in time to get a lot of attention from the Academy.

Apr 29 - 10:15 AM

No shit, Michael. How long did it take you to figure out that I was comparing these movies because they're both "westerns"? I never hid that fact, you dipshit. And you can list off all the reasons why they are different and try to convince yourself that you're right. But you're not...and you know it.

Apr 29 - 02:33 PM

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, one is about slavery, the other aliens?

Yeah I don't really see the connection. Guess I am a dipshit too.

Apr 30 - 04:34 AM

Both fiction, yet one is criticized for not being factually correct. Try actually comprehending things before you respond, Gary.

Apr 30 - 04:39 PM

Brendan Sullivan

I wouldn't say their the same thing, because I would compare cowboys and aliens with John Carter. I get what you are saying and I would compare this movie to Godfather. Fictional movie that set in a realistic setting

Apr 30 - 11:29 PM

Yeah, I'm 'wrong' for not liking this film. ALso, you're right, this is basically just a Cowboys and Aliens ripoff, you're such an educated film buff.

Apr 29 - 07:28 PM

Never said you were wrong for not liking this film, genius. But your reasons are bullshit.

Apr 30 - 04:38 PM

Yes, my personal reasons for not liking this film are bullshit. I'm very flattered that have such passionate concerns with my thoughts and feelings about this movie.

May 1 - 07:13 AM

Brendan, comparing it to John Carter misses the mark. Cowboys and Aliens is a genre mashup, like Blade Runner (sci-fi/noir) or From Dusk Till Dawn (crime/horror) or Sukiyaki Western Django / Kung Fu Hustle (almost too obvious)

May 1 - 07:24 AM

Brendan Sullivan

It's a science fiction movie about Aliens in a Civil War time period. It's the same thing. Just because one is on mars and one is on earth doesn't mean they're different.

May 1 - 05:47 PM

Actually, both movies, Cowboys and Aliens, and Django Unchained are genre mashups. Cowboys and Aliens is a mashup of westerns and science fiction; Django Unchained is a mashup of (spaghetti)westerns and Blaxploitation.
While the Science Fiction aspect of Cowboys and Aliens may leave more room for over the top fantastical things than Blaxploitation does, in obvious ways, Blaxploitation and the Spaghetti Western are much heightened fiction styles, and both genres are painfully obviously far removed from reality. Yes, employing filmmaking techniques that provide a sense of realism during the more serious scenes is something that's happening in Django Unchained, and the Basic scenario and facts in the story, such as the whole slavery thing, those things are meant to be taken seriously, but generally, most of the moments in the film are obviously way over the top, cartoonish, and exaggerated, and it's plain as day that it is meant as an over the top, entertaining spectacle, with some very hard and painful truths at the heart of it, but when a movie is so clearly embracing the fantastical and paying homage to all these other movies and fluctuating in tone in such a colorful way, I just don't get it why people are bothered about the amount of realism or the lack thereof, in the picture..

May 3 - 08:46 AM

I would agree with that for the most part. The realism doesn't bother me so much as the attention to detail. I'm gonna answer something from up above right here - Tarantino's 2nd cameo in the film. I feel that a Best Picture or a movie that scores above 90% in anyone's rating should be a near perfect representation of what the collaborators are getting across. His performance is like watching bad karaoke. It made me uncomfortable, but not in the 'good' ways that you experience in Film school with films by Kuchor or Ono or any of THAT horrible shit. Have you seen Sukiyaki Western Django? Tarantino's opening dialogue in that would completely ruin the film if it weren't for the fact that it stands apart from all of the rest of it and doesn't even appear to matter in the grand sceme of that one. Not exactly a masterpiece though. I would like to say that my harshness with this movie is because i LOVE Tarantino AND Waltz.

May 3 - 10:04 AM

Right on, I love Tarantino and Waltz as well, and I agree that Tarantino's role may have been more effective and less distracting if played by someone else, though I can't help but wonder if he wanted to do this cameo as an homage to Sergio Leone; In the opening titles of 'For a Few Dollars More', Sergio Leone's name appears and then gets 'shot away' and explodes into smithereens, if you recall(if you've seen the movie), and when Tarantino had himself get blown up, there's obviously no question he was paying homage to Leone here; I'm not sure if that was his sole reason for doing the cameo, but it's an interesting point to consider, if you haven't thought of it, though, acknowledging this likely won't make the performance more effective in your eyes, but still, it's something to consider. Which reminds me, I haven't heard anyone mention the other big Sergio Leone homage; the climax when Stephen is calling Django a "SON OF A.." with the "..BITCH" being covered up by the explosion, just like Tuco being interrupted while saying the same thing to Blondie on "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly"..

I'm ashamed to say, I haven't seen Sukiyaki Western Django. I'm a big fan of Takashi Miike, and a huge spaghetti western fan, but, again, I'm ashamed to say, I was following Sukiyaki Western Django before it even came out, and was looking forward to watching it, but at the time, although I was then a big spaghetti western fan, I had not yet seen the original Django, and I knew it likely wasn't essential to view before Sukiyaki, I preferred to watch Django first. Of course, I have seen the original Django since then, years ago, but I still haven't gotten around to watching Sukiyaki Western Django..

May 3 - 10:34 AM

THANK YOU! I'm certain you're correct looking back and that's pretty bad ass. I was looking for broad Western themes like Leone stuff or Magnificent Seven and was a little upset to not see any of it. I finished The Dark Tower last summer and I loved how the back bone to many of the stories was very equal parts Fantasy and Western when boiled down to the thematic elements. This is why the entire stretch of Django and Candie traveling with the group was a little boring to me. The Dialogue was soooooo solid, but to me the whole movie comes to a halt and then the third act gets pretty weird I thought.

May 3 - 11:22 AM

Brendan Sullivan

Like everyone's been saying. It's a movie, second that's not the KKK, for more than half your argument you talk about rubush, 3rd you try to throw random star wars in there without giving any reasoning (for being as smart as you think you are you would think you wouldn't make a rookie mistake. Explain everything you say or at least hint at what your saying), and again your taking this too seriously. This is a movie and apparently you've need see one, because most action movies are way over the top. Don't watch an action movie if you're expecting a realitic movie. Do you know why your argument is invalid now? Now try and go around arguing against me like you've done for every comment I've said. P.S. you just did what I said in my last statement. Apparently you're not smart enough to know what a philosophy term is.
Here you go same. Here's the "hard comment" for you

Apr 25 - 06:50 PM

Brendan Sullivan

now try and go around my "hard comment" like you always do.

Apr 25 - 06:51 PM

Brendan, okay, first of all I know it's a movie. That's kinda why I rated it. Second, for the HUNDREDTH time, I DON'T CARE. There is no historical reference/historical accuracy for the idiots wearing the potato sacks at that time period. THEREFORE I say it is an anachronism. I do not like anachronisms. I have explained this to you many times. Hopefully that will finally get this through your little head. What, do you need it in SPANISH? I'm glad to you know you think I'm smart. If you saw "Star-Wars" you would have noticed there is scene after scene where the evil Empire warriors would always miss when they attempted to shoot, say, Luke Skywalker. I used this merely as an example. Others abound. Your comment that I am taking this too seriously is baseless. I'll take this as seriously as I want, thank you very much. You imply that Django Unchained is an action movie. Is it? Because I am still not certain where its genre falls as I made clear in my review. It does not stick to a particular genre, premise or theme...and that sucks. No, I do not see why my argument is invalid now and I don't think you REALLY see it either...though I do see that you still suck at grammar and punctuation. I don't dislike all action movies; I loved Dirty Harry. I don't dislike all films that are unrealistic: I loved Ferris Bueller's Day Off. It's not like the words "Save Ferris" would really be written on the screen at a Chicago Cubs game. However, in both of those films, the fantastical elements FIT the premises of the film. OKAY??? One other thing; would you please stop pretentiously talking about a "philosophy term" and about how I should know what one is? Look, you're cute and I think it's great you passed a freshmen philosophy class but seriously: GET OVER YOURSELF.

Apr 26 - 07:21 PM

Brendan Sullivan

if you don't realize that this movies fails into two categories than you don't watch movies that much. It falls into action/adventure and drama which is quite obvious. It's a fictional movies that's set in a realistic setting. It doesn't have to be historically accurate. You've never heard of Godfather. Same thing a fictional movie set in a realistic setting. Also, the Star Wars example is so retarded. There's tons of reasons why those shots miss, but I'm not going to get into that. We're not talking about that movie. Also, a person makes fun of someone else's grammar because they feel insecure.Next how doesn't "fantastical elements fit this movie"? Like I said before its an action movie and its suppose to be over the top with things like bullets missing as being normal for the movie. Last note is important. You are taking this too seriously. You come onto a movie rating website to scream out your ideas of a movie that most people loved. You then try and through your ideas out like a man on a mission to get people on here to get angry of your post. You succeed at that point you did get me angry. Now just grow up and go back to your "meaningful" arguments of movies that are well liked. You believe that you know what you're talking about when you don't realize is your arguments are invalid. When someone points those flaws out you try and rip their grammar or hit them personally. You're probably going to say it's not true, but there's like 100 people on here that will back me up. Now I'm done with you because I've said my peace and "preached" my thoughts and yet you give me garage like the comment you just did. P.S. forgot to say. You can't tell someone to "GET OVER YOURSELF" when you try and flaunt how smart you are almost every comment you post. Congrats your a thesaurus writer. Now fuck off and go back to pretending to be cool. Tool!

Apr 26 - 09:57 PM

You're cute.

May 4 - 10:11 AM

Brendan Sullivan

you're pathetic

May 4 - 11:44 PM

Brendan, you called this an action movie... It's not

Apr 27 - 09:59 AM

Historical inaccuracies can be awesome. Basterds was inspired and awesome! This wasn't inventive or interesting to me at all in the sense that I ever wanted to see the civil rights movement portrayed in this way, I wasn't bothered about the in accuracies of the Klan thing happening, that was among my favorite scenes really. The fat that Aussies, Germans and German speaking slaves were happening in this reality to this small group of people in the deep south reeeeeeally bothered me. I want to believe that these people could realistically know each other geographically. This was Michael Parks worst role ever.

Apr 27 - 10:13 AM

Brendan Sullivan

I understand what you're saying, but Sam's taking this too far. When it comes down to it is the fact that it's a movie. I just for entertainment and wasn't going for history accuracy

Apr 27 - 05:53 PM

Brendan Sullivan

Also I think it still was an action/adventure movie.

Apr 27 - 05:54 PM

Your arguments make no sense to me Michael Weiss. And yes, it is an action movie lol, how is it not? And Michael Parks' worst role? He barely said two words, what are you talking about? lol and the fact that anyone can be bothered about historical accuracy in a movie with this exaggerated tone, it's just baffling to me, sorry to say.

Apr 28 - 02:59 PM

Brendan Sullivan

This guys is almost as bad as Sam.

Apr 28 - 05:15 PM

There were no action sequences with any inventiveness, he's taken to absurd action shots that happen in an instant. Watch Candie's sister get shot with the sound off. I love 2pac too and thought his song in it was horribly placed and ridiculous, like the whole soundtrack to A Knight's Tale.

Apr 28 - 05:48 PM

As for the historical accuracy, I don't need it, but this seemed like a movie where he only bent reality enough for Christoph Waltz to play a significant role in a story that takes place in this part of the world at this time. That's just about all this movie seemed like to me personally. I like Christoph Waltz a lot too, I'm also a huge Tarantino fan, both reasons make me dislike this movie even more passionately.

Apr 28 - 05:55 PM

In other words, I think, what you're getting at, is that you think it was too much of a stretch to have a character like Waltz in this story. My question is: how does that seem implausible, at all? Have there not been Many European immigrants coming to the states? You have got to be kidding me. I don't understand your logic here at all, but maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

May 3 - 08:51 AM

It's not that he's German, it's that they add Foxx's wife's character as German speaking which is just a plot device to bring Waltz along to Candieland. Like the guy on the plane in Die Hard that tells him to make 'fists with your toes.' Can't he just be barefoot for any of the billions of reasons to be barefoot? It all fits so neatly into place. One thing I haven't mentioned is that they big up Candieland to be this awful and dangerous place for Django (which it kinda is...) but then he seems like a pig in shit walking around anywhere he wants right away. I was stoked when I thought they were infiltrating enemy territory, then it seemed to be the safest place for a black cowboy to hang out in the Deep South.

May 3 - 10:08 AM

Tim, lol would my words make more lol sense to you if I lol add a bunch of 'lol's to it lol?

Apr 29 - 10:21 AM

lol

May 3 - 08:48 AM

And no, by the way..

May 3 - 08:55 AM

Movies fall into way more categories than TWO! Also, people who point out bad grammar usually just have a more advanced intellect and find it hard to read peoples poorly written words. Get a thesaurus Brennan and text less, your words should represent you.

Apr 30 - 03:03 PM

Brendan Sullivan

Like I said. It's a action/adventure, drama, and western.

May 1 - 05:48 PM

Brendan Sullivan

P.S. It's a forum on RT not an essay for a college.

May 1 - 06:02 PM

Don't be the guy who says 'their' in place of 'they're.' People with a vocabulary really hate that.

May 3 - 10:31 AM

Brendan Sullivan

I don't, so whats your arguement

May 5 - 02:16 PM

Laura Fellomini

Hey Sambo, being that any-retentive cannot be much fun. The 'comic relief' as you deem it, seems only to have bothered uber-anal types like you who look for any and every reason to knock movies/books/tv series, etc. cuz it makes you feel smart and useful. You get a little hard-on, don't you, when that uptight brain you sorta use sees something you decide doesn't fit your idea of what you are viewing/reading. Django is a movie, not a documentary, and therefore anything can happen in it. Those same words were written by a Pulitzer prize winner in criticism, someone vastly more qualified to speak on film than yourself. Your lack of knowledge of those who predated the clan is your own shortcoming. And to call this movie 'serious historical fiction' makes me wonder wtf you consider 'The Deerhunter' or 'Full Metal Jacket'.

Apr 24 - 01:12 PM

Uber-anal, huh? I suppose anything CAN happen in a film but films are often rated on the basis of historical accuracy and plausibility. My hard-on is not little, by the way.

Apr 24 - 08:13 PM

Rated on the basis of historical accuracy and plausibility? Not all the time, and especially not a Tarantino film. Are you drunk?

Apr 25 - 12:08 AM

Brendan Sullivan

No, probably on drugs. He don't get the concept that a movie isn't a documentary

Apr 25 - 06:41 PM

But I still respect your opinion, by the way.

Apr 24 - 12:17 AM

Thank you. I think what this is really about is that I just am not too keen on Tarantino's film-making style. I clearly have a minority opinion. Still, that's the way I feel.

Apr 24 - 08:15 PM

Thank you. I think what this is really about is that I just am not too keen on Tarantino's film-making style. I clearly have a minority opinion. Still, that's the way I feel.

Apr 24 - 08:15 PM

Sam, that's totally cool. I respect that. Just don't go making empty threats and acting like your opinion is gospel.

Apr 25 - 06:53 PM

Gotcha

Apr 26 - 07:22 PM

The film doesn't have to be 100% accurate. The Klansmen inaccuracy was, in my opinion, a very small thing and it shouldn't have made anyone think that Django Unchained turned into a Mel Brooks film. That's Quentin Tarantino. He blends action and humor along with his other famous trademarks and he does it without his films becoming tedious or smug. Didn't you see Inglorious Basterds (another amazing film)? The climactic scene was of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels, along with most of Hitler's high command, being gunned down in a burning movie theater. As you all know, both Hitler and Goebbels died by their own hand in real life, but QT changed history in his notorious Tarantinoverse by letting the second World War end with the Third Reich burn down along with that theater. Was that so wrong? It's his universe, not ours. With that pivotal moment happening towards the end of Inglorious Basterds, you should've already known that QT changes history a little bit. And besides, one small thing like historical inaccuracy shouldn't change your opinion about the whole film just like that. You have to look at the other set pieces of the movie, like performances and the story. Then maybe you'll figure out that this film ain't so bad after all. It fact, it's pretty amazing.

Apr 24 - 12:14 AM

Put it this way: did you ever see Ocean's 11? Remember that scene where, when you least expected it, the remote control didn't work and George Clooney just says "check the batteries" and Matt Damon chides him about making one little mistake. I thought that scene was just brilliant. So unexpected, so funny, and with such a genuine human element. However, the anachronistic Klansmen (or the regulators or whatever you want to call them, the point is they didn't exist) is truly an anachronism and is therefore devoid of that human element. I also happen to think it's just not funny. Their conversation struck me as lame.

Apr 24 - 08:19 PM

You do have a point about the human element thing. But like I said, you have appreciate the other set pieces of this film, especially the performances of Leonardo DiCaprio and Christoph Waltz. And also, if you're talking about accuracy, then you shouldn't have a problem with the scenes showing how brutally the black slaves were treated back then, because those so-called "unwatchable" scenes were the problem for most people.

Apr 25 - 07:31 AM

But did he ever say they were the KKK, no we as an audience or some of the audience I should say assumed it, but it was never said or claimed to be the KKK within the film, just an assumption by folks.

Apr 30 - 04:38 AM

The only conclusion I can derive from this is....
This guy has a small dick.

Apr 23 - 10:06 PM

Your conclusion is incorrect.

Apr 24 - 07:54 PM

Sam does not reply to the hard comments, may I ask why?

Apr 22 - 09:05 PM

He's responded to every post he's seen. The last time he loggen on to RT was on the 18th.

Apr 22 - 09:42 PM

Joseph, it's nice to know some people are mature enough to realize one should give credit where credit is due even if they don't agree. How refreshing.

Apr 24 - 07:56 PM

Brendan Sullivan

He will reply to every comment, but won't ever rebut your hard comment. He tries to go around the fact.

Apr 23 - 08:25 PM

Oh, Brendan just shut the fuck up. I do no such thing and you know it. AS IF you have ever made a "hard," intelligent comment.

Apr 24 - 07:59 PM

Brendan Sullivan

why don't you try and make me. Oh yeah, because you a pussy that bitches on his computer. Also, I have and again you always go around it.

Apr 25 - 06:42 PM

You're cute.

Apr 26 - 07:23 PM

Brendan Sullivan

and you're gay

Apr 29 - 07:57 PM

They were not portraying the KKK, just white men with masks and no white suits

Apr 22 - 08:49 PM

I have responded to comments like this before but I'll say it again: I really don't think there is any historical allocation for white bigots to ride around on horses with potato sacks on their heads before the KKK was formed. So enough mealy-mouthed remarks about what they were called. It's an anachronism. THANK YOU!

Apr 24 - 08:04 PM

But you make a broad assumptions and when you make an assumption you make an ass out of you and umption. (must thank SLJ for that quote)

Like I said in another reply no one in the film during the running time of the film said they were the KKK, It was the audience who assumed, therefore making asses of themselves this was in fact the KKK.

Slice it and dice it all you want SAM, but show me, via a running time mark where in the film they were said by any character to be the KKK

Apr 30 - 04:41 AM

I have a comment about the genre changes that you mention. This has actually been a topic that my brother and I have discussed about Tarantino films for about a year now. When watching a Tarantino film, it almost seems impossible to look at it through the lens of one genre. None of his movies (aside from maybe Reservior Dogs) truly stick to one genre. This is because each film weaves through many different genres, following the flow of Tarantino's crazy, albeit amazing, mind. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that Tarantino deserves his own genre of film, due to the uniqueness of his filmmaking. I mean, it is incredibly hard to compare Django to another western, drama, comedy, or action flick. You simply have to view it as an extremely messed up, over the top Tarantino film.

Apr 21 - 07:10 PM

I think it's interesting the way you say Tarantino deserves his own genre. I do not disagree. I think a film-maker can make their own genre and that particular genre should grow from the fundamental premise of the film. However, I think Django Unchained either lacks premise or deviates from the premise it has.

Apr 24 - 08:25 PM

Frances Woodard

Oh my goodness poor free thinking people can't stand for anyone else to have an opinion different than theirs. So what he doesn't like the movie; neither do I. Does that send you all into spastic fits or something. If a white man made a movie in which he beat a black man and then stated on the media that he got great pleasure out of acting out beating a black man like Jamie Foxx did the media and all of you so called free thinking people would go ballistic but is has become politically correct for people to discriminate and be prejudiced against whites even for those free thinking whites. I have many black friends but prejudice is wrong no matter who it comes from. Anyway the movie was very historically off. But you people need to get a life those of you who cannot stand for someone to have a diff opinion than you without having a cardiac

Apr 19 - 06:43 PM

Brendan Sullivan

Like you should have read in the comments. It's a movie not a documentary and you and him are taking it way too seriously. Second, his facts are wrong, because that wasn't suppose to be the KKK and they were just trying to make fun of what the people in the KKK were. I do argue with you about Jamie Foxx he should have shut his mouth and if it was the other way around this would be a different confersation we would be having. It's not that he had a different opinion of the movie it's his argument was invalid. It would be like a person saying that he/she hates superman, because a person in real life can't fly

Apr 19 - 07:00 PM

Superman is not a human Brendan!!!

Apr 24 - 11:37 PM

Brendan Sullivan

really? I know that. My argument is still valid if I said spiderman, hulk, antman, etc. Do I need to go on.

Apr 25 - 06:44 PM

The documentary thing you keep repeating is just stupid. Fiction can be fantasy, but remain appealing. This is historical fantasy, which is a new thing. Like Steampunk, it blends things together in an absurd way. Keep faulting people for OPINIONS (which cannot be 'wrong') and calling people gay. You are a child.

Apr 27 - 10:23 AM

Brendan thinks he's going to argue people into liking this movie that he apparently has stock in. How old are you, seriously? 'Confersation' hah!

May 1 - 07:34 AM

I agree with your first line, Frances, and I respect your opinion.
I do disagree with your second point;it's a complicated issue, to be sure, but I don't think it has anything to do with black or white; no matter the races involved, under these particular circumstances(a whole race of people oppressed and abused for centuries)and race or group of people would feel bitter about it, especially if it's a subject that's been largely ignored, like this one. That doesn't mean that racism towards white people is justified; racism towards any race of people is equally immoral and despicable, and so I agree with you that, yes, prejudice is wrong no matter who it comes from, there's no denying that. There's also no denying what happened in history. It is what it is, and it's unfortunate for all parties involved, but if you look at the facts, you can't deny there's an understandable need for a sense of retribution of sorts. Now, I'm actually unaware of what Jamie Foxx said about this, but my opinion on some of the things you said still stands, but I will seek out Jamie Foxx's quote.
As far as the movie being historically off, well, I'm of the opinion that with a clearly over-the-top stylish type of cartoonish movie like this, I think you are viewing the movie in a context it wasn't meant to be experienced in; it's painfully obvious to me that this movie made it perfectly clear that it is not meant to be taken too seriously in many aspects(such as the cartoonish comical violence and the general exaggerated spectacle of it all; it's meant to play almost like a 'legend' or fairytale), but if you acknowledge this and the anachronisms still bother you anyway, it's obviously just not your thing, and who am I, or anyone, to question your opinion or your taste in movies?(not sarcasm,in case it happens to seem that way)MHO, peace ^_^

Apr 19 - 07:51 PM

('Any'group of people.., I meant)^_^

Apr 19 - 08:39 PM

Thanks Frences. Brendan, how many times do I have to explain this? I DON'T REALLY CARE WHAT THEY WERE CALLED, the point is that people like the probably did not exist at that time period, therefore I say it's an anachronism. Your last sentence could not be more wrong. Why? Because superman belongs to the GENRE of comic book heroes. So yes, he can fly. However, if Superman went back in time to the 17th-century and there were people using fax machines and cellular phones, I would say THAT is a big anachronism and is unacceptable.

Apr 24 - 08:31 PM

Brendan Sullivan

just shut up already. Do you realize what you say or do you pull it out of your ass.

Apr 25 - 06:46 PM

Oh, I get it. First you say I don't respond to your hard comments or philosophical terms or whatever you call them. Then when I show you that I actually DO respond to them, and effectively too, you react this way. I'm not surprised.

Apr 26 - 07:26 PM

Brendan Sullivan

I'm just giving you a taste of your own medicine

Apr 26 - 09:59 PM

Wow. Looking at this comment section really is an eye-opener to how rude people can be when it comes to pointless shit. Seriously, he just didn't like the movie. Sure, the essay he wrote comes off a bit douchey, but so what? It's just a movie folks. You don't need to get in a full rage just because someone on this Earth disagrees with your movie taste. Just ignore it. I personally loved this movie but I didn't act like Sam killed my family. Just ignore it. Gosh

Apr 19 - 04:23 PM

Definitely.It goes both ways, and I don't know who said what first or whatever, but I agree with you, it's ridiculous when people start attacking each other personally like this. I get it, I know people are passionate about their opinions about this movie, as am I, but after all, it is just a movie, and I think being compassionate towards another person is more important than expressing your passion for something you enjoy just because somebody doesn't also enjoy it. Live and let live :) I don't mean to be a hypocrite, because everyone, including myself, has overreacted at one point or another, but I don't think any movie is worth becoming personal enemies with someone over. MHO, peace everyone :)

Apr 19 - 07:23 PM

Oh, you guys...you know there's something I noticed this evening when I looked at my comments. We have finally gotten to the point where people are making disparaging remarks about my genitals. Laura Fellomini and "Chum Chum" are the ones who finally DIGRESSED us to that lowest of all common denominators. Was it inevitable...? But hey, there's a little fifth-grader in all of us, right?

Apr 24 - 08:38 PM

I think I know what's going on here and I'm disappointed that I wasn't able to pick up on it earlier. Sam, I don't think you're a troll. I wish you were because the alternative frightens me.

You're a well educated man who (if that's you in the photograph) appears to be in exceptional physical condition. I bring this up because you are clearly vain and you want everyone to know it. I'm a firm believer in "live and let live." If that's what you're all about, then that's fine. Who am I to judge? However, by drawing that conclusion, I can only become suspicious of you.

Sam, you're the most arrogant poster on RT and you may construe that as a compliment. I assure you it is not. There's something missing in your life. You may have a lot of money, perhaps a beautiful girlfriend, and a stellar intellect, but something is missing. There's a hole in your life. Perhaps there are many holes. Perhaps you choose to fill these holes by signing up to a website and ranting about a film that you did not care for. Perhaps you fill these holes by participating in altercations with all who disagree with your pretentious tirades. I've seen you act pious with teenagers in this very thread. You even went so far as to pull out your "internet muscles." You actually said, "say it to my face and I'll make you even uglier." I don't have to tell you how many things I find wrong with that comment. You stooped to the low intellect that you so angrily condemn. You said that to a teenager, Sam. How old are you? What's missing in your life, Sam? You pretend to be smarter and more mature than everyone in this thread but in actuality, you're scared. What are you scared of? You might as well just come clean and tell us because you just proved to the world that you're nothing more than a hollow shell of a man. You threatened a tennager over the internet, Sam. How does that make you feel? If that's what it takes to help you get through your day, then you are the most pathetic excuse for a man I've ever encountered. I hope you find whatever is missing in your life. Have a good day.

Apr 19 - 06:48 AM

Christ, man. You're gonna make the guy cry lol

Apr 20 - 07:08 AM

Dang, Chase. Somebody should give you your own radio show. As for that little dork Hollis Mills, how was I supposed to know he was a teenager? Though if he said that to my face I probably would call him out because, guess what, you don't say that to Sam McCrea. Oh, that is me in the pic and I'm glad you think I'm in great shape. I'm not crying, I'm blushing.

Apr 24 - 09:00 PM

I've met many people in my life that have mirror images of your personality. To be honest with you, you're all the same. You're nothing special, Sam. Your cocky persona is a disguise and you know it. Make your sarcastic comments all you want but you know it's true. I'm glad you think I should get my own radio show. Look, Sam, I'm cocky too. I'll even go so far as to say that if we ever crossed paths without having this discussion, we might very well be friends. I get along with people like you and I relate to them. The reason is because we all have holes in our lives. I'm cocky because I've been burnt in the past by individuals close to me. I'm man enough to admit my faults. Are you?

Apr 25 - 06:06 PM

Uh, admit my faults. I definitely do admit my faults. However, not to a bunch of strangers I met online when all I wanted was to rate a film. Sorry, man. Go make a friend.

Apr 26 - 07:29 PM

*cough* faggot

Apr 26 - 07:44 PM

I've had the misfortune of dealing with many folks like yourself who take great pride in deconstructing the personalities of other people to injure them psychologically.

All of you, and especially you, Chase or whatever your name is, are being petty and immature by ganging up on someone who had the nerve to tell you that he didn't like a fucking Quentin Tarantino movie, and when he defends himself you antagonize and troll him even more.

Not everyone has to agree with you or kowtow to your personal preferences. Grow the fuck up.

May 9 - 04:05 AM

Brendan Sullivan

I love how this guy doesn't realize that mostly everyone commenting thinks he's a giant prick

Apr 18 - 09:28 PM

Just out of curiosity, Brendan, what makes you think I don't realize it?

Apr 18 - 09:44 PM

Brendan Sullivan

because you keep commenting the same stupid shit over and over again. You need better comebacks.

Apr 18 - 11:05 PM

Only because you keep SAYING the same stupid stuff, Brendan. You want a different comeback? Hmm, let's see...YO MAMA!!!

Apr 24 - 09:25 PM

Brendan Sullivan

Wow, your more stupid than I thought

Apr 25 - 06:47 PM

Brendan Sullivan

your mom really? That's not what I was saying, but you wouldn't know a good comeback if it hit you your fuck up face.

Apr 25 - 06:47 PM

You're right, Brendan. I've never delivered a good comeback. Never, ever, ever. Oh by the way it's "You're" more stupid than I though.

Apr 26 - 07:31 PM

Brendan Sullivan

again. Cool story. I know it's you're sorry I didn't put a '. Doesn't make my argument any less true.

Apr 26 - 10:00 PM

I agree with Sam, but for different reasons. DeCaprio lost points for his lackluster and unconvincing performance. He looks like a boy and acts like one, but the role demands an older and more sophisticated southern gent. The film can't make up it's mind about whether it's about bad white people or the institution of slavery. Gore seems to be the greater emphasis than a plot that should have terminated 40 minutes sooner than it did.

Apr 18 - 08:18 PM

Well, I respect your take on the film, but I disagree; I agree that DiCaprio's character(Calvin Candie)acts boyish, but I think that was intentional, in fact, Tarantino has talked about this and said so himself. Apparently he wrote the part for a slightly older Southern gentleman, but when he cast DiCaprio, he re-evaluated what the role should be, and he decided it would be good to have him this spoiled type of man-child that's never had to lift a finger, and I think DiCaprio hit the nail right on the head, and so, I guess we're in agreement in a way, it's just that I think you misunderstood Dicaprio's/Tarantino's interpretation of the character. As far as whether the film is about bad white people or the institution of slavery, I mean, I don't follow, the two go hand in hand. Maybe you feel the movie wasn't consistent in one area or another, but it's unclear to me what you're specifically complaining about there, and I think those two elements fit like a glove, of course.
And I don't agree that 'gore' was the main emphasis. I don't think anyone who gave the movie reasonable consideration whatsoever can possibly deny the depth and powerful emotion in this movie. It was very graphic, yes, enough to call it 'gory', and Tarantino recently said he thinks it's the goriest western since the Wild Bunch, and I agree, and that aspect has always reminded me of the Wild Bunch, but anyway, I know it's really graphic, and much of the violence is over the top and cartoonish, but I don't think anyone in their right minds could deny the overwhelming emotional power of it's more serious scenes, especially the violent ones, that's some very intense, powerful stuff. So, I think the movie, while a celebration of b movies and genre movies like all Tarantino's films, it is obviously a very substantial and very powerful film.
As far as the movie being overly long, I can see how this would be a problem with many people. I personally think Tarantino pretty much can do no wrong and I'm a big fan so I love all of it, though, speaking of the Wild Bunch, I was honestly hoping for a big climactic shootout at the end or something, but, at the same time, that would have just been plowing over the same old material again, and it would have been satisfying for a minute but ultimately more forgettable, so I'm glad it turned out the way it did.
Anyway, MHO..peace

Apr 18 - 08:49 PM

You think it's overrated but that doesn't mean it is. Your paragraph is so long that no one is going to want to read it.

Apr 18 - 05:53 PM

I read it. But I didn't watch the "Wild Bunch" so I can't comment on that. I agree with his remark about Di'Caprio playing a spoiled man-child. Obviously I don't agree that Tarantino can do no wrong but hey, that's why we're here.

Apr 18 - 09:50 PM

Nice, thank you for reading my comment, I have a bad habit of writing these long ass novels when it comes to my comments.Yeah if you like westerns, check out the Wild Bunch, an absolute classic.

Apr 19 - 08:51 AM

Guess what? My favorite author is James A. Michener. Now THAT is reading.

Apr 24 - 09:01 PM

That was not a reply to my comment, that was for someone else's comment

Apr 19 - 01:04 PM

Sumner Strickland

In the movie they never say that they're part of the Ku Klux Klan, if you were actually watching they hint at this is the first appearance of the Ku Klux Klan. Lastly you have no idea what your talking about do you? Just because the movie is critically acclaimed (and for good reason) doesn't mean it's overrated. I'd have no problem if you found an actual reason to dislike the movie but you don't. So to me you just sound like an unintelligent, and immature asshole.

Apr 18 - 04:45 PM

So they weren't the Ku Klux Klan but they hinted they were the Ku Klux Klan... Kid, seriously, do even YOU know what you are trying to say here? Also, I am aware a movie is not automatically overrated just because it is critically acclaimed. However, are YOU AWARE that a movie doesn't deserve accolades just because YOU say it's "for a good reason?" Practice what you preach, man. One other thing, I DID find an "actual reason" to dislike the movie. I found a few; that's kinda what my review was about. Things like anachronisms and and genre changes, you know? So I guess now you have no problem, right?

Apr 18 - 09:59 PM

Sumner Strickland

I'm sorry I did misstep at the beginning, what I meant to say that this was the first appearance of the bag heads. And yeah I loved the film because I loved the story, the writing and above all the performances were outstanding, that was just my opinion. And no you didn't, you just said said that you had a problem with Tarantino. Genre changes and anachronisms are what Tarantino does and if you didn't know that before going into the film then it's your fault for going in and not understanding what you're in for.

Apr 22 - 04:41 PM

I saw it on a burned dvd. So I didn't go in. Also, if genre changes and anachronisms are "what Tarantino does" then it's my humble opinion that he shouldn't because it's not good movie-making. Thank you.

Apr 24 - 08:43 PM

Roger Ebert, the best film critic in the world loved this movie. As for your In Living Color comment, Mr. Foxx has down very well so far since then, such as Ray.

Apr 15 - 05:25 PM

No argument there. I saw Ray and was, in fact, waiting for somebody to point that out. He won an Oscar for it. Though that is the kind of film critics tend to like.

Apr 17 - 10:14 PM

and they loved this too
eat it baby blue bitch

Apr 18 - 03:40 PM

How can you tell I have baby blues? I'm wearing shades in my pic.

Apr 18 - 10:01 PM

I think he's referring to your shirt.

Apr 19 - 07:19 PM

thanks frank, and no moron

Apr 19 - 09:23 PM

Sam Mc(faggot)Crea = The new Wendell pace

Apr 14 - 11:55 AM

If you said that to my face, I would make yours even uglier.

Apr 17 - 10:15 PM

This is the internet, man. That's not possible.

Apr 18 - 01:18 PM

oh let me get closer to the screen...ahem..faggot

Apr 18 - 03:41 PM

Thank you Dylan for telling me how the internet works. I am merely pointing out that you're a coward and I'll bet you really WOULDN'T say that to my face if I were ever so unfortunate as to meet up with you. I'll also bet you're naive enough to think these remarks faze me. In case you haven't figured it out yet, I respect intellect. You don't have any.

Apr 18 - 10:06 PM

Make an attempt to show your maturity and intellect by not responding to our comments like you have something to prove.

Apr 19 - 01:18 PM

wrong i dont give a fuck and i would

Apr 19 - 09:23 PM

Brendan Sullivan

he won't even argue back and you can't argue with a fool

Apr 9 - 04:57 PM

I was just thinking the same thing. Still, you're fun to toy with.

Apr 10 - 10:47 PM

Brendan Sullivan

good one. Taking someone else joke and trying to make it your own.

Apr 12 - 09:16 AM

When will you guys shut the fuck up? Obviously neither of you will come to an agreement so why keep bitching and moaning at eachother?

Apr 13 - 05:50 PM

I appreciate your passion for this movie though Brendan. I'm mostly telling Sam McCunt to stop trying to provoke fans of this film.

Apr 13 - 05:53 PM

Brendan Sullivan

because it's funny to watch him try and make us believe hes'some smart and cool individual. In reality his premise is false, he's a political dumbass,etc. His argument against me will be something like he's said before. A comment that he thinks is clever, but just idiotic

Apr 13 - 09:29 PM

Yo Frank, can you at least TRY to be an adult? You're not in 5th grade anymore. I love how I'm "trying to provoke" fans of this movie. I've said it before, I guess I gotta say it again: the purpose of this website is to share opinions about movies, whether the opinions are popular or not. If you don't like my opinions you are free to not read them. However, nobody, I repeat NOBODY on this website has said anything that really convinces me that my opinions are wrong. Oh, Brendan Sullivan and Hollis Mills, FYI: if you REALLY DO want to show me I am wrong, saying stuff like "what a dumb fuck" and "political dumbass" won't cut it. You have both said next to nothing about the movie itself. The only really interesting remark I've heard was Tim Jordan's. Oh but Brendan, I think it's very interesting that you would mention "premise." Have you been reading Lajos Egri like I suggested?

Apr 17 - 10:31 PM

Jeff Parker said the same exact thing that Tim said, so I don't know why it took you so long to acknowledge it.

Apr 18 - 01:18 PM

Brendan Sullivan

If you were really that smart you would know that's a philosophy "term". also I've provided you with evidence why your comment is invalid, but you tend to not see it.

Apr 18 - 09:32 PM

Such as?

Apr 18 - 10:08 PM

Brendan Sullivan

Like everyone's been saying. It's a movie, second that's not the KKK, for more than half your argument you talk about rubush, 3rd you try to throw random star wars in there without giving any reasoning (for being as smart as you think you are you would think you wouldn't make a rookie mistake. Explain everything you say or at least hint at what your saying), and again your taking this too seriously. This is a movie and apparently you've need see one, because most action movies are way over the top. Don't watch an action movie if you're expecting a realitic movie. Do you know why your argument is invalid now? Now try and go around arguing against me like you've done for every comment I've said. P.S. you just did what I said in my last statement. Apparently you're not smart enough to know what a philosophy term is.

Apr 18 - 11:13 PM

what a dumb fuck !

Apr 8 - 05:32 PM

Oh, you're brilliant.

Apr 10 - 10:47 PM

oh thanks, now fuck off

Apr 11 - 06:54 PM

First of all, the 'klansmen', as others have mentioned, were not even supposed to be the KKK, they were preceded by the KKK, they were 'the Regulators'. As far as skipping around in different genres, that's what Tarantino has Always done, every one of his movies is paying homage to various genres, and All of his movies after the nineties have had a fluctuating tone(in a good way, IMO), and it wasn't during this klan scene that this happened in, the tone fluctuated all throughout the entire movie, and not out of sloppiness, out of an exhilarating explosion of filmmaking exuberance, Tarantino taking us on a movie roller coaster ride. Even the tone of the violent scenes varies, some of the violence is meant to be comical and cartoonish, some is meant to be cathartic, and some of it is meant to be downright disturbing and traumatizing, as Tarantino has said as much himself(but even if he didn't it's plain as day to see, just watch the movie).
Your reasoning and logic are poor and inaccurate, and it seems to me you just don't like the movie for some social or political reason or something, or Tarantino's movies just aren't your thing, and I respect your opinion, but the particular things you are saying just hold no water, your arguments here are completely unfounded and invalid.

Apr 8 - 09:35 AM

Exactly..finally someone explains it. It's a Tarantino film. You either get it or you don't. He can take you from a high tension verbal battle of the wits one second, then jump to a ridiculously gory (and over the top) bloodbath of a gunfight. How he's able to weave this different moments together is what makes him special.

May 7 - 09:52 PM

lol they were not the klan you fucking retard. He made a movie HIS way. i loved it, don't take a quentin tarantino movie so seriously.

Apr 7 - 10:07 AM

Brendan Sullivan

I wouldn't even argue with this idiot. He doesn't have common sense.

Apr 7 - 08:11 PM

Gabe, I understand he made it his way. I didn't like his way. Genres should be consistent in a film. Oh and Brendan, I love the way you say you wouldn't even argue...as if you haven't. Then again, your comments are so utterly lacking in any substance or depth I suppose some would say that they aren't an argument. Hmmm....

Apr 10 - 10:55 PM

Brendan Sullivan

your litterally try and believe that your some smart person that knows all the secrets of the world, but yet you just afraid stupid son of a bitch that sits at his computer, and tries to through his knowledge around. Which is fact I'll already know everything you say in your statement and yet you ignored the main premise, which I've stated all along. You want something factorial then watch a documentary and not a movie.

Apr 12 - 09:15 AM

Brendan Sullivan

throw*

Apr 12 - 06:15 PM

A factorial is when you multiply an integer by every positive integer below it. Sorry if I sit at my computer and throw my knowledge around; but it was that or post pictures of my cockatiel, you know?

Apr 17 - 10:59 PM

And besides, what happened to the Avon Lady? Max Factor.

Apr 18 - 08:21 PM

overrated,huh? what movie did you think was good? the hobbit? thank god that wasn't overrated.no,not at all. the only remaining true critic left us.your opinion doesn't matter

Apr 4 - 09:14 PM

Just because you think it's overrated, doesn't mean you have to rip on it. You and this guy don't seem to understand that.

Apr 9 - 05:29 PM

Just because it's overrated doesn't mean I have to rip on it. Okay... Hunter, in case you haven't figured it out yet, the whole POINT

Apr 10 - 11:04 PM

of this website is to critique movies. And you are correct that I don't HAVE to critique movies but then I wouldn't come here. Your remark is about as idiotic as the stuff Brendan Sullivan says.

Apr 10 - 11:06 PM

Brendan Sullivan

good one.

Apr 12 - 09:17 AM

Look at who I replied to. Not you. Mr. Martinez up there. That's a more idiotic statement then the stuff Matthew Preston says. Now start paying attention because I know you're not a stupid guy, Sam.

Apr 19 - 02:44 PM

Tom, that is a good question. I did not see that film. I liked Argo. Also, I'm glad that Anna Karenina was made into a film just because it inspired me to read the book; which I did. I then watched the movie and thought it was most unusual. For what it's worth I'll say one thing though: that Keira Knightley is one beautiful woman.

Apr 10 - 11:02 PM

Brendan Sullivan

why do you watch movies if you want complete accuracy. It wasn't suppose to be accurate it was suppose to be entertaining.

Apr 4 - 11:30 AM

True. I enjoyed "Finding Nemo" even though I know that clown fish can't swim to dental offices in Australia in search of their long-lost sons. Again, it's that whole genre issue. You know, you ought to read "The Art of Dramatic Writing" by Lajos Egri. Or any book for that matter.

Apr 10 - 11:27 PM

I hate it when people tell other people to read books. I hate that.

Apr 18 - 05:55 PM

Well, oops.

Apr 18 - 10:12 PM

Brendan Sullivan

fyi an argument can be invalid if he's facts are completely wrong

Apr 2 - 11:27 PM

I am aware of that.

Apr 10 - 11:27 PM

Brendan Sullivan

then you're an idiot, because you stated earlier that you can't "an argument is not "invalid" just because you don't like it". It's invalid, so that's why I don't like it

Apr 12 - 09:22 AM

I'm an idiot. Okay, you still have not told me HOW my argument is invalid.

Apr 17 - 10:39 PM

Brendan Sullivan

I'm pretty sure I already did like maybe 12 million times already. Also, you might not know, but I exaggerated there

Apr 18 - 09:26 PM

Brendan, with all due respect, you can't even seem to write a grammatically correct sentence yet you're telling me you've written some incisive, penetrating argument against me. Guess what? I don't see it. And please don't respond to me with your typical "You just don't see it because you're stupid, etc, etc." (Except of course that you would misspell most of the words.) What you're doing is called begging the question.

Apr 18 - 10:25 PM

Brendan Sullivan

said the guy that does the same thing

Apr 18 - 11:15 PM

Uh, huh...

Apr 24 - 09:05 PM

This guy's a moron.

Apr 1 - 03:44 PM

Brendan Sullivan

i second that

Apr 2 - 11:26 PM

Alex, at least I recognize the difference between keyboard gibberish and a legitimate name. I'm glad to see you second that, Brendan. The sai has spoken.

Apr 10 - 11:28 PM

When idiots don't have any good comebacks, they resort to either insulting the other person's name or profile pic. Nice job, Sam.

Apr 11 - 02:13 PM

Dear Dylan, sarcasm is hard to detect over the web. If you really meant the "nice job" line then you understand this conversation better than Brendan and Alex put together. If you're trying to rip on me, then this is an INCREDIBLE irony. For what it's worth, I've never insulted anybody's name or profile pic. After all, just their comments give me plenty of fodder.

Apr 17 - 10:48 PM

You called Alex's name "keyboard gibberish". I think that's supposed to be an insult. Or am I wrong?

Apr 18 - 01:15 PM

I did not call Alex's name anything. I was referring to something HE said on another page which I commented on. I think it was the one called "Will watching Django Unchained make me Gay?" but I wouldn't swear to it.

Apr 18 - 10:30 PM

well.you obviously are quite messed up man
1)There was no actual Klan reference to the film.Actually,to me at least,Tarantino quite aptly portrayed the exact roots of the Klan,the base of racism-and at the same time,with subcutaneous humor,the real stupidity on it's very existance(the potato sack scene you mentioned)
-2)The "unrealistic Hollywood"shooting are targeting EXACTLY in being sarcastic about the Hollywood "violence"-from the westerns to The Expendables of Hollywood productions
3)To me,it's these "genre changes" which characterise the depth and artistic-and multiple leveled-eye of Tarantino in this film
4)get your act together and re-watch it

Mar 31 - 03:18 PM

Hey man, whatever floats your boat. Still, I wonder what it is OBJECTIVELY that you believe makes this portrayal so apt. By the way, you misspelled "existence" and "its" as the latter should have been in the possessive.

Apr 10 - 11:41 PM

Oh one other thing: I'm glad to know that TO YOU these genre changes "characterize the depth and artistic and multiple leveled-eye of Tarantino in this film." You should know that TO ME it would be an extraordinary and multi-faceted form of artistic free expression for you to blow me. Can't I be bad just once? :-)

Apr 10 - 11:45 PM

listen fuckface,everybody's proven you your argument about django is wrong and stupid.so cut the bullshit and shut your mouth-and please don't be so hardcore behind the screen

Apr 20 - 09:18 AM

Oh, COME ON, MAN! It was funny. And nobody has "proven" anything. These are opinions.

Apr 24 - 09:08 PM

and excuse my grammar,im not from the us

Apr 21 - 12:50 PM

I think its funny how people come on here with their opinions, and think its gold....You thought the film was overrated...others didn't. Guess that makes them wrong and you right??

Mar 28 - 07:26 PM

According to them, it's vice-versa. What do you think?

Apr 10 - 11:46 PM

It's interesting how much vitriole your review stirred up. Obviously some Tarantino acolytes out there feel some serious emotional attachment to this movie. My 10c worth- I see where you're coming from Sam McCrea, historical accuracy matters to me and this pastiche of lurid bits and pieces of fact and fiction is somehow offensive to my sensibilities. Nevertheless ... it's 'art', and with that goes all the poetic license you need to perpetrate shocking distortions of historical fact for the purpose of courting controversy and selling movie tickets.

Mar 28 - 12:45 AM

Dear Chase Nyland, how was I supposed to know writing a paragraph would be considered a serious effort? I can type 70wpm. I think a serious effort would be something like when I earned a master's degree, or scored a 1350 on the GRE or when I passed Vector Calculus. Y'all have to admit, that's pretty good for a retarded six year old. Oh, and I suggest reading the following Paul Kersey article from V-dare, my favorite web-zine: http://www.vdare.com/articles/django-unchained-the-birth-of-a-new-nation

Mar 25 - 01:34 PM

Yes! I get my own paragraph!

All of your "achievements" and "skills" mean absolutely nothing to me. All you're truly accomplishing is further proving my theory that you're a cocky little fuck. I could go on and on about my profession and exceptional education but I'd rather keep that to myself because it's none of anyone's concern. Unless, I so desperately seeked attention that I would fully disclose all of my obtainments but that arrogant behavior is out of character for me. More importantly, it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Therefore, going back to my original point, all of your verbose efforts to impress are irrelevant. You dissliked the film because it was incongruent with history. Tough shit. Look at Inglourious Basterds. Do you really think Adolf Hitler died in a burning theater? Of course not. It's a fucking movie and it never promised to be based off of actual events, so lighten up and get off your high horse.

You cocky. little. fuck.

Mar 25 - 02:11 PM

The meat of your statement contains 12 sentences. My responses to them are: 1) You did call me a dimwit. And what's with the pretentious quotation marks? 2) That isn't nice. 3) So you mention your "Exceptional education," but then you want to keep it to yourself? Btw, THAT is when quotation marks make sense. 4) I get the feeling it's NOT out of character for you. 5-6) NO argument there. I didn't call you a dimwit. 7) Yeah! You get it!! I also thought it was too long, kinda boring, Leonardo DiCaprio's accent got on my nerves. Though I think the plot, in and of itself, had potential. 8) Uh, okay. Profanity is used by a feeble mind trying to express itself with power. 9-10) No, he committed suicide. Though I thought the opening scene for that film was brilliantly acted. 11-12) You know, maybe I'm just not too crazy about Tarantino's films for the most part. And maybe that's okay. You're not gonna die just because somebody has a differing opinion. You're going to live. It's okay. Nice periods in the end, by the way.

Mar 25 - 09:37 PM

Brendan Sullivan

you can be smart and still be a dimwit dumbass

Apr 4 - 11:26 AM

Thanks, Brendan. I get the feeling YOU, however, can only be one of those things. Guess which one it is.

Apr 10 - 11:50 PM

Brendan Sullivan

I'm pretty smart, which probably leaves the dimwit to you

Apr 18 - 11:16 PM

You're cute.

Apr 24 - 09:12 PM

Jeff Parker: In response to your 3-15 reply. I recently read "Chesapeake" and "Texas" by James A. Michener. He is my favorite author and I believe one of the greatest historical fiction writers of all time. I love his work. I also got a 4 on the AP American History Exam, I have always lived in the south, and have known and loved many older-generation southern aristocrats. I also volunteered as a docent at the "Historic Haile Homestead" in Gainesville, Florida, which was once a plantation. I readily admit that history is ALWAYS a best guess. Still, for you to say I have "no idea" what I'm talking about is not exactly fair. One other thing: your last sentence is not a question, it's a statement. Oh and Brendan Sullivan: I have not seen watchmen. What's it about?

Mar 23 - 06:31 PM

Lmao wow, that took some serious effort. Good for you! You got so butthurt that you decided to address most of us by name! Sam, you're a pretentious dimwit. Pat yourself on the back for all of your achievements that no one cares about. Even though I'm not entirely educated on the topic of 19th century Southern slavery, I do know that I'm not going to use some inaccurate elements of a film in my final conclusion of the film's quality unless it promises a true story. Tarantino did not. You're out of your element, you cocky little fuck.

Mar 24 - 07:07 AM

Just out of curiosity, what do you believe I am claiming to be a serious effort?

Mar 24 - 06:58 PM

Holy fuck, you're retarded. My serious effort comment pertained to your creation of a whole seperate post to address us with your retort as opposed to individually replying to them. This is explained in my third sentence in my above post.

Mar 25 - 06:17 AM

You don't think think that "why do you pretend like you do?" is a question? Here's another question: Are you over the age of seven, by any chance?

Mar 24 - 03:08 PM

No, I'm six.

Mar 24 - 07:00 PM

It shows.

Mar 25 - 11:52 AM

And one more question: You do know that is possible to reply to us by simply clicking the "reply" button underneath our comments, right?

Mar 24 - 03:10 PM

Yes.

Mar 24 - 07:00 PM

Dear Brandan Sullivan: That hurts. I feel ripped to shreds by your brilliant statement. But just so you know, kid; an argument is not "invalid" just because you don't like it. Mr. Nawfal: please tell me where I can find an American history textbook that mentions the Regulators. Dear Alex Maverick: Actually, some people DO care. Maybe that's why websites like this exist. Dylan Jones: Aw come on. If I didn't respond, people like you, Brendan Sullivan and Lee Augustus couldn't feel all smug calling me a "total bullshit tasteless conservatard..." And then what would you do for fun? Read books? But don't worry, I will move on. In fact, I am reading a book.

Mar 23 - 06:22 PM

So, you're admitting that the only reason you made this thread was for attention. Got it.

Mar 24 - 03:13 PM

Yes, yes, and I am sure the reason YOU wrote THIS thread was to win the Nobel prize for literature. BTW, I also wrote it to critique a film. You cool with that?

Mar 24 - 06:47 PM

You could've just written a review on your profile. It would've made more sense.

Mar 25 - 11:51 AM

Sam, do you realize that you're the OP and not Dylan?

Mar 25 - 12:42 PM

Brendan Sullivan

can't call me kid when your like two or three years older than me dumbass

Apr 2 - 11:25 PM

Samuel, sir, the point isn't about finding The Regulators in a history textbook. The point is that Tarantino already knew that the bag heads weren't the KKK and said so, and here you were bashing him for not doing research when it is in fact you that didn't read and find out before criticizing, that Tarantino already knew that those men were not the KKK.

Mar 30 - 03:42 AM

It's like, you want to make a scene fit into a plot even though it doesn't. So you try to gloss it over and make it fit...but it doesn't. 20 lashes for a filmmaker who does such things.

Apr 24 - 09:15 PM

This scene was to show how ignorant racist bigots acted at the time, and Tarantino managed to do that in a hilarious way too. Just because he gave us some comic relief in a movie that takes place in a serious era, he deserves 20 lashes? This is ridiculous, and you sound very, very pretentious. And judging by your other posts you're pretty arrogant to boot.

Apr 27 - 06:51 AM

I'm not a Liberal. Liberal, conservative, libertarians, all gigantic piles of shit in my opinion. Conservatism, however, is the most disgusting and intellectually deprived of them all.

Apr 9 - 04:23 PM

Well aren't you just one big friggin' ray of sunshine?

Apr 24 - 09:16 PM

Brendan Sullivan

You wrote a paragraph of total bullshit. This movie was amazing and your argument is invalid

Mar 21 - 08:25 PM

You're cute. Does your mommie know you use such language?

Mar 25 - 01:19 PM

Brendan Sullivan

does yours know how much of an idiot you are or have you told her yet.

Apr 2 - 11:22 PM

That hurts.

Apr 17 - 10:52 PM

Hey Sam, those masked men were not the KKK, they were The Regulators, a pre-KKK group. Tarantino said so. Why don't YOU do more research next time before bashing?

Mar 21 - 07:34 AM

Brendan Sullivan

yeah, that's what I was about to put.

Mar 21 - 08:25 PM

Earth to Sam McCrea: Yeah, no one cares.

Mar 20 - 01:48 PM

You have about as much evidence to support your claims as Tarantino does to support his so just shut up and move on.

Mar 18 - 05:23 PM

Since when was Django supposed to be historical fiction? I thought it was supposed to be a Western/Blaxplotaion film?

Mar 17 - 02:58 AM

tasteless conservatard

Mar 16 - 04:00 PM

The entire scene including whom you yourself have denoted as being "Klan" members is supposed to represent the start-up or roots of the KKK, hence the potato sacks instead of traditional Klan attire. It is not Mr. Tarantino's, but your facts that need checking.

Mar 16 - 10:50 AM

Mr. Nyland, of course I've seen Tarantino films before as I mentioned "Pulp Fiction" in my commentary. I also saw "Kill Bill" which also sucked. JEFF PARKER: Unless there is historical evidence that there was, in fact, a "prelude" to the KKK prior to the Civil War, it's still an anachronism. I really don't think there were any racists wandering around with potato sacks on their heads prior to Lee's surrender at Appomattox. Why would there have been? Remember, since the blacks had no rights and the whites could do whatever they pleased to these people, is there any reason the whites would have felt the need to conceal their identity in such a situation? Also, I've always been under the impression the old-south aristocracy was really big on being polite and, particularly, being delicate towards women. Women weren't supposed to see anything gross. So, instructing a slave woman to unzip her dress and reveal her nasty scars at the dinner table while a lady is eating there strikes me as unrealistic. Tarantino just didn't do his homework.

Mar 14 - 08:21 PM

And you are basing this off of...what? You've given no evidence to support any of your claims. All you've said is "I don't think this" and "I don't think that", which leads me to ask the question: You clearly don't have any idea of what you're talking about so why do you pretend like you do?

Mar 15 - 02:29 PM

Sam, I was being snide. You've clearly seen other Tarantino films which is why I'm so confused. If you're familiar with Tarantino's work, why would it surprise you that Django was a little outlandish? And if you don't like that sort of thing, why go see it? But more importantly, why bitch about it? You're so self absorbed that you decided to spew nonsense in your pretentious analysis of something you clearly don't know anything about.

Mar 15 - 03:06 PM

I get the feeling you are downright fascinated by my comments. It's a little frightening.

Apr 24 - 09:18 PM

Are you one of THOSE people? Think Kathy Bates in "Misery."

Apr 24 - 09:18 PM

Brendan Sullivan

it's a fucken movie Sam. It's not suppose to be factional. Do you not want movies? You must have loved watchmen then

Mar 21 - 08:27 PM

Frankie Gilmore

How the hell did Kill Bill suck???? It had awesome violence, a great soundtrack, a very well one story, great dialogue, and a touching ending in Vol. 2. Sorry I had to say it.

Mar 30 - 03:18 AM

Tarantino knew that the KKK wasn't formed yet in that period. That's why you never hear the name "Ku Klux Klan" in that scene. The whole thing was supposed to be like a prelude to the KKK. It was a group of racist men who wore some cheap bags on their heads. But, we see that the bags turned out to be poorly made. These were the people (in the movie universe) who formed the official KKK after the Civil War.

Mar 14 - 03:15 PM

Yes - The men in hoods organised by Big Daddy represent a group known as "The Regulators" - spiritual forebears of the later post-civil war KKK formed in 1865. Tarantino knew this Sam.

Apr 19 - 12:02 PM

Okay, just show me where I can find any information about these people (Wikipedia, whatever) and I'll apologize for the remark.

Apr 24 - 09:20 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Django_Unchained

Look under the the section labeled "Historical Inaccuracies"

That should take care of it.

May 7 - 10:18 PM

Have you ever seen a Tarantino film before?

Mar 14 - 07:24 AM

He says he has in his paragraph

Apr 18 - 05:57 PM

Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | API | Licensing | Mobile

Copyright © Flixster, Inc. All rights reserved. Copyright Policy | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Ad Choices